Colbert Eviscerates the New McDonalds budget for workers

[_Kevin Graham]

http://www.upworthy.com/stephen-colbert ... et-7?c=fea

Absolutely hilarious!

[_ldsfaqs]

I actually believe morally and practically speaking large corporations should pay a so-called "living wage". I don't believe it should be "forced" unless they Unionize, then I'm not necessarily against it, because problems can be resolved with "bargoning" for all's benefit.

There is a video on Youtube about Walmart giving a living wage and how the cost would be negligable. That's not unreasonable in my mind.
Now, for smaller company's that don't have the benefit of "mass" to spread cost, I'm absolutely against it.

Further, there's one big problem with Colbert as is the problem with all liberals using a little truth to LIE.
McDonalds business model is not designed to be a "full time" standard job for the first level worker.
It's primarily a job for people who are just starting to work, need a side job, or need some supplemental retirement income. In other words, Colberts report was one big fat LIE.

It should be noted also that many businesses are going to part-time work more than they have or would because of Obama and liberals (Obamacare), just as we conservatives warned would happen.

[_Analytics]

Here is a link to the budget that McDonald's publishes for its workers:

http://www.practicalmoneyskills.com/mcd ... urnal2.pdf

The budget currently on the Internet has $50 a month for heating (as compared to the zero Colbert shows in the video), but still has $20 a month for health insurance.

Using this as a guide, in order to be able to afford $20 a month for health insurance you need $2,060 a month in take-home pay. Assuming this person only works 60 hours a week, you need to make $8.58 an hour after tax in order to make that much.

[_cinepro]

I guess the ultimate question is whether or not a job at McDonalds must provide enough income for a full time worker to meet a certain standard of living.

And who gets to answer that question?

[_Analytics]

I guess the ultimate question is whether or not a job at McDonalds must provide enough income for a full time worker to meet a certain standard of living.

And who gets to answer that question?

What these questions really have to do with is how do we split up the economic pie that the productive jointly create? If certain Republicans had there way, minimum wage, universal healthcare, and Medicaid would all be eliminated. Perhaps the Dickensian economy we are marching towards is the natural order of things. Perhaps the only Tiny Tims who should receive live-saving medical care are the ones with parents who can afford it. Perhaps if you life in a slum scraping by on $1,000 a month you should just be happy you aren't thrown into debter's prison.

Or perhaps we can find a way to share the abundance of our economy more widely.

[_cinepro]

Or perhaps we can find a way to share the abundance of our economy more widely.

What do you mean by "the abundance of our economy"? And in what way is a minimum wage a good way to ensure that it is "shared"?

And more importantly, what are the negative effects of a minimum wage? I'm always a little worried when people act like we can pass laws requiring someone else to pay their employees more money, and there won't be any downside to the arrangement for anyone involved, or society in general.

In other words, there are no free lunches in economics, and that includes minimum wage laws. I think it's fine if someone acknowledges the costs as being worth it, but we should at least include them in the conversation.

[_Analytics]

Or perhaps we can find a way to share the abundance of our economy more widely.

What do you mean by "the abundance of our economy"? And in what way is a minimum wage a good way to ensure that it is "shared"?

The U.S. economy has a GDP of about $15 trillion dollars. That is the abundance of the economy. To provide a sense of how much money that is, if we divided it up evenly among the 300 million people who live here, we would have $50,000 a year for every man, woman, and child in the country. So a totally even slice of the pie would mean $150,000 for my little family of three.

Looking at it another way, if we assume the total labor force is 150 million people, on average, each worker creates $100,000 in goods and services every year.

And more importantly, what are the negative effects of a minimum wage? I'm always a little worried when people act like we can pass laws requiring someone else to pay their employees more money, and there won't be any downside to the arrangement for anyone involved, or society in general.

In other words, there are no free lunches in economics, and that includes minimum wage laws. I think it's fine if someone acknowledges the costs as being worth it, but we should at least include them in the conversation.

Sure, there are lots of people out there who produce much less than $100,000 a year. However, you need to remember that many of these low-production workers actually make much more than $100,000 a year. That's because for whatever reason, they've claimed ownership of capital, which allows them to claim ownership of the profit that couldn't be generated without the labor of others.

Anyway, I'm simply making the observation that Americans work our asses off, and we produce an enormous amount of goods and services to show for it. From a purely normative perspective, every American who is willing to work should be able to enjoy a lifestyle outside of poverty.

[_ajax18]

Or perhaps we can find a way to share the abundance of our economy more widely.

What abundance is that, the $16 trillion debt? Did you factor that liability into your slice of the pie. Freeways, healthcare, environmental money sinks, not much pie left for each person after that is paid for.

Anyway, I'm simply making the observation that Americans work our asses off

The labor participation rate is only 68%. If that were a report card, it'd be an F.

[_krose]

The U.S. economy has a GDP of about $15 trillion dollars.

What abundance is that, the $16 trillion debt? Did you factor that liability into your slice of the pie. Freeways, healthcare, environmental money sinks, not much pie left for each person after that is paid for.

So... if I make $150,000 every year, am I in trouble because I have a $160,000 mortgage balance and various expenses related to home ownership and living?

Of course, even in this comparison I ignored the fact that a government's debt doesn't have to ever be paid off. It just has to be managed, and the interest has to be paid to the bond holders.

Comparing government debt to consumer debt is silly.

[_ajax18]

So... if I make $150,000 every year, am I in trouble because I have a $160,000 mortgage balance and various expenses related to home ownership and living?

I sure wish I could live on the black side of financial life rather than the red. It's the difference between owning my own business and working for someone else.

Of course, even in this comparison I ignored the fact that a government's debt doesn't have to ever be paid off. It just has to be managed, and the interest has to be paid to the bond holders.

I guess that's really what's going on. The government has no intention of ever paying off the debt. So why pay taxes? Why not just treat it like a credit card you never intend to pay off. Just make the minimum payment and rack up debt ad infinitum. At least an individual consumers debts are discharged when he dies.

Wouldn't the dollar be worth a lot more if the U.S. were 16 trillion in the black instead of the red? Everyone would benefit.